W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: checked RDF semantics for XSD stuff, couldn't grok namespace entailment

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 12:05:49 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b1eba21218986b4@[]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>At 01:31 14/12/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
>>Brian, Dan makes some good points that would be best fixed. How 
>>much of a disaster would it be if I were to give you a revised 
>>snapshot by say Monday EOW my time (evening your time)??
>I'm out of the office from Monday lunchtime till Wed night at a 
>conference.  I think I'll have wireless access there, but can't be 
>certain.  Eric may be able to fill in I have problems.
>Looks like Dan has identified some must fixes so an update is 
>necessary.  I suggest you go ahead but resist the urge to polish 
>that which doesn't really need it.

OK, I take your point. When done (probably late tonight) it will be 
on my website with the ending _2 instead of _1,  I'll leave the older 
one there.

>  I'll put the current version in CVS and we can always examine the 
>diffs, presuming there are not too many.
>>All the changes will be link-fixings and small text-edits, nothing 
>>earthshaking. I also plan to call out formal technical definitions, 
>>give them all anchors and put in links from every term use to a 
>>glossary entry or definition, throughout the text.
>I agree that giving the technical definitions anchors is a good 
>thing, but I'd rather have stability in the document right now. 
>There will be an update after last call - could that be done then?

Yes. Those later changes will be more to style than to content.

>We are now into change control.  My mental model is that the WG have 
>to review the last call document.  We need to review that document, 
>not something that is nearly that document.  I don't want to get to 
>the last call decision and have folks say the doc's changed too much.
>I recommend you stick to must fixes only.

OK, will do. Content re-edits and fix broken links only.

The big content issue is whether plain literals are XSD strings. That 
needs to be decided, soon, and may require changes in several 
documents. I plan to simply be conspicuously agnostic on this issue 
in this draft of the semantics, by deleting the paragraph that Dan 
objects to. However I don't think that we should go to last call with 
this an open issue, I'd like to get it clear one way or the other. I 
predict that Dan C and Patrick will be at odds over this one. I have 
no axe to grind on this, but as editor Id rather the document was 
clear on the point.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2002 13:05:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:03 UTC